Posted
by
EditorDavid
on Monday July 17, 2017 @06:34AM
from the lobbying-for-leniency dept.

The EFF complains that "the very companies who spent millions of dollars lobbying in D.C. to repeal our federal broadband privacy rights are now fighting state attempts to protect consumers because they supposedly prefer a federal rule." The EFF urges Californians to phone their state senator ahead of a crucial back-to-back committee hearings on Tuesday. An anonymous reader writes:
"Congress stole your online privacy. Let's seize it back," begins an email that the EFF is sending to California supporters. It warns that "Big Telecom has massive amounts of money to spend on an army of lobbyists. But if Internet users from across California unite with one voice, we can defeat their misinformation campaign... Don't let the big ISPs coopt our privacy."

The EFF's site points out that more than 83% of Americans support the privacy regulations which were repealed in March by the U.S. Congress, according to a new poll released last week. That's even more than the 77% of Americans who support keeping current net neutrality protections in place, according to the same poll. The EFF now hopes that California's newly-proposed legislation could become a model for privacy-protecting laws in other states. And back in Silicon Valley, the San Jose Mercury News writes that California "has an obligation to take a lead in establishing the basic privacy rights of consumers using the Internet. Beyond being the right thing to do for the whole country, building trust in tech products is an essential long-term business strategy for the industry that was born in this region."
The EFF has also compiled an interesting list of past instances where ISPs have already tried to exploit the personal information of their customers for profit.

We know as of 2015 telecom carriers worked to "ingest" data from cellphones close to 300 times a day every day across 20 to 25 million mobile subscribers (we aren't told which mobile telephone companies participate in this practice, they keep that a secret). That data is used to inform retailers about customer browsing info, geolocation, and demographic data.

We know in 2011 ISPs engaged in search hijacking where your Internet search queries were monitored in order to be rerouted in coordination with a company called Paxfire...

And lastly, we know in 2014 Verizon tagged every one of their mobile customers' HTTP connections with a semi permanent super-cookie, and used those super-cookies to enable third parties such as advertisers to target individual customers. Not only that, but Verizon's super-cookie also allowed unaffiliated third parties to track you, no matter what steps you took to preserve your privacy. And worst of all, AT&T was going to follow suit to get in on the action but quickly retreated after Verizon got into legal trouble with the federal government.

This is prime example of the paradox of the domination of regulation by the Federal government. It's economically more efficient to have a single standard to follow. In theory, more efficiency should lead to lower prices and greater competition.

But in practice, it seems to lead to regulatory capture, monopoly-like conditions and rent-seeking.

Theories never take into account human irrationality or the desire for inefficient outcomes. It's always assumed that pure, utilitarian goals are the norm and that actors are infallible or immediately held accountable for poor performance. Reality reflects none of these assumptions and any theory that only attempts to explain the world through simple maximums and minimums cannot be correct by definition because it complete erases individual preference and experience.

Centralization works in favor of the plutocrats - only one person to bribe instead of 50.

Yeah, not so much. You often hear the words "states' rights" in plutocratic propoganda, and that's because when regulation isn't the way big business wants it, it's much easier to push over a state government than it is the federal. See: Texas, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana...

Too many asleep while privacy was being destroyed. How many embrace sites like Facebook or Google and yet complain about ISP's? Really? What's the difference? Sure 83% support privacy but only 10% or less actually do much about it. How about smart meters on your house? Telling the electrical companies about your usage. Or the NSA collecting phone data, or the constant barrage of hackers stealing data from companies that promised to protect your information. Privacy is a joke its a oxy moron when its referre

Privacy CAN NEVER DIE, simply because privacy is a NEED, not a consumer product, nor is it a protection.

So I think you sir are full of it, and by announcing the death of privacy and encouraging people to ignore privacy and "move on", you are imo lulling people into a sense of defeatism.

For all I know, you could be someone that is actively lobbying against privacy as a right, as if you were then working for some government organization that prey on people's privacy, or worse. In that case, what you wrote the

Consider human rights, supposed to be rights to all individuals, and just because you probably don't know much about, nor care about human rights as such, the instituted rights, doesn't mean such rights aren't needed, just because you and people you know don't seem to want to say that they need them.

So I think you sir are full of it, and by announcing the death of privacy and encouraging people to ignore privacy and "move on", you are imo lulling people into a sense of defeatism.

This whole "privacy is dead" thing used to bug me too because I value my privacy pretty highly. It really means that if you want to use a lot of the modern tools we have available to us you have no choice but to give up your privacy.

If you want to get directions to a destination you have to turn on location services on your phone which then sends your location to a server to generate the maps/directions. You have the same problem if you're a runner or cyclist who wants to track their workouts. All of th

If you want to get directions to a destination you have to turn on location services on your phone which then sends your location to a server to generate the maps/directions. You have the same problem if you're a runner or cyclist who wants to track their workouts. All of the data is stored and processed somewhere else.

Or you could use an offline maps app like OsmAnd~ [f-droid.org] and not need to use anything but GPS. (Even works on tablets.)

If you install a messenger/comms app on your phone it wants to read your contac

Don't give up. It is inch by inch, person by person that this battle can be won.

I always rejoice when I can demonstrate to people how The Google is tracking them. Notice that mail in your inbox which "appears" right at the moment you get online? Notice how that stops once you use, say, ixquick or DuckDuckGo (or a handful of others)?

There are those who respond "meh". Then there are those who switch search engine. Or mail provider. Or both.

He means that he'll doubleclick on the icon for Trumpet Winsock, click on the "Dial" button, beep-boop-beep-boop-boop-beep-boop (pause) hmmmmbeepitybeewhoooooshcracklewhooosh (silence) and then a few seconds later, Eudora will suddenly report he has one new mail message. How do they know??! HOW DO THEY KNOW?!!!

My gas company wanted to upgrade the meter, and gave me a choice, let us install it, or you'll pay more, like 4% more, can't remember what they called it. I told them I'll take two if I can get a discount.

Something similar happens with the water/sewer service where I live. If you don't have a water meter you get billed a (high) flat amount depending on the size of your property. If you have a meter installed, then you pay actual usage.

Well,/. is not doing better. As of few days I am unable to see any content while using the Adblocker mobile browser. This is not the first time....sure if I fire any other browser it works fine [fine; definition - half the screen full with ads]. Disabling the blocker for/. only did not work either. No idea what is going on but over the years I saw time and again sites that at a certain moment refuse to serve me if try using even meager ad and privacy protection software.

Exactly! They successfully defeated fairly reasonable rules at the federal level, now hopefully they will get a shittrain of regulations at the level of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. Sometimes karma is a bitch.

Don't kid yourself, just the net neutrality they will get (pay) Congress to pass a new toothless regulation that bars the states from passing individual regulations. This is a time honored tradition in communications lobbying.

I'm sure Trump will go right along with it because if telecom companies can't sell your privacy to the highest bidder it will be bad for jobs.

Credit cards aren't revenue streams. Interest made on credit cards is for the issuing financial institution. Merchants accepting credit cards as forms of payment gives them more opportunity for customer transactions. What is your point?

What the heck are you talking about. The credit card companies make fist fulls of cash off your personal data. They also make money off of transaction fees. What items you buy where you shop they are tracking it all.

I'm talking about credit cards are not a revenue stream of this nature. It's your personal data. It would have been more appropriate to say "Just like credit card companies and financial institutions". But instead the poster said "Just like a credit card". You should have made the post for that person. It would have been significantly more coherent.

If you made the original post, it's likely you did because you have all the context in your mind for the comment. The thing you don't realize most likely is that it's unlikely anyone else will have that specific context in their mind and therefore you would need to convey it in order for them to truly understand what you mean by very short sentence fragments. That would require you to not live inside your own mind and actually consider what it's like to be in someone else's shoes though. That seems very

Many are also opposed to companies not telling you they are spying on you, or hiding it in sophistry about increasing your experience at the bottom of page 97 of a click thru, where they know you will misunderstand and hope and pray you don't figure it out, for their financial benefit.

Many are also opposed to companies not telling you they are spying on you, or hiding it in sophistry about increasing your experience at the bottom of page 97 of a click thru, where they know you will misunderstand and hope and pray you don't figure it out, for their financial benefit.

That is fraud, and stopping fraud is a legitimate interest.

Nope, that's not fraud. That's your failure to read and understand the legal disclosure. In order to constitute fraud, the information has to not be disclosed to you purposefully. What you're actually bitching about is the nature of Capitalism. Capitalism is about making profits. It's not about morality or ethics. The only "morality" or "ethics" is what is imposed via government regulation. That's the dark truth.

Capitalism is about making profits. It's not about morality or ethics. The only "morality" or "ethics" is what is imposed via government regulation. That's the dark truth.

Wow, it didn't take long for some liberal to mod me down. Hey, I didn't say I agreed with it. I just said that's the way it is and that's the truth. If you want to change it, instead of getting pissy with me get into politics and get some real change in there. The first step to addressing any problem is admitting there is a problem. The second step is not sitting on your ass behind a keyboard or a smart phone constantly whining about somebody else not doing something about it.

Anyway, I'd be tempted to mod you down just for reacting to a mod like this, but I will instead point out to you, that when it comes to hidden terms in agreements, there is a consideration that they can constitute fraud, and even actual challenges to them. You can find more in the recent discussion about a WiFi's terms of service agreement, but I don't feel like bothering twice.

Go hire a law firm and prove it in court then. I await your results. Good luck.

But now the replacement Oxford Dictionaries Online firmly suggests to avoid the apostrophe except in a few special cases:

Apostrophes and plural forms

The general rule is that you should not use an apostrophe to form the plurals of nouns, abbreviations, or dates made up of numbers: just add -s (or -es, if the noun in question forms its plural with - es). For example:...MP MPs (e.g. Local MPs are divided on this issue.)

1990 1990s (e.g. The situation was different in the 1990s.)

It's very important to remember this grammatical rule.

There are one or two cases in which it is acceptable to use an apostrophe to form a plural, purely for the sake of clarity:* you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single letters:I've dotted the i's and crossed the t's. Find all the p's in appear.* you can use an apostrophe to show the plurals of single numbers:Find all the number 7's.

So you're correct about single letters, but you don't use the same rule for single letters and multiple letters.

That said, it's all just a matter of style. Find a style you like and pick a guide that supports it.:-) I'm sure another guide (CMOS, AP, etc.) does it your way.